the fortifications in orĂŞtie mountains as ... banatului arheologie-istorie...the fortifications...

ANALELE BANATULUI, S.N., ARHEOLOGIE – ISTORIE, XXIV, 2016http://muzeulnationalalbanatului.ro/analele-banatului/despre-analele-banatului/

255

THE FORTIFICATIONS IN ORĂŞTIE MOUNTAINS AS ENCLOSURES*

Alin Henţ**

Keywords: fortifications, enclosures, boundaries, Orăştiei Mountains, functionality

The Fortifications in Orăştie Mountains as Enclosures (Abstract)

Enclosure-making is a phenomenon of human evolution that can be identified throughout all historical periods. Within archaeological research, the most frequently encountered types of enclosures are ditches, banks, and walls. During the last few years, specialists in the relevant field of research from Western Europe have started to approach this topic from various perspectives in an attempt to explain the reasons behind this phenomenon rather than its technical aspects. This is precisely the reason why the term enclosure covers a wide range of constructions and designs but does not necessarily indicate a clear functionality. The Dacian fortifications from the Orăştiei Mountains, i.e. Băniţa, Căpâlna, Costeşti-Blidaru, Costeşti-Cetăţuie, Grădiștea de Munte-Sarmizegetusa Regia and Luncani-Piatra Roşie can also be included in this category of enclosures. Over the following pages I will attempt to examine them according to a model of analysis employed for the Iron Age fortifications on British ter-ritory also to Orăştiei Mountains fortresses

IntroductionThe practice of creating enclosures is a phenom-

enon which concerns both prehistory and history and such constructions are evidences of human expression over shorter or longer periods of time1. The term enclosure generally designates an area that is enclosed/separated from the rest of the territory through some structure which stands as a barrier against movement. The most frequently encoun-tered boundaries discovered through archaeologi-cal research are ditches, banks, palisades or walls, often found in the same context or in various combinations.

The relevant archaeological publications from Western Europe contain an interesting debate on the topic, trying to explain the reasons that drove communities to use boundaries and enclosures, more than focusing on the technical aspects of such enclosures. Among the researchers and works that touch upon the subject and that I have studied

* This paper was possible with the financial support offered by the Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development 2007–2013, co-financed through the European Social Fund within the POSDRU/187/1.5/S/155383 project, with the title “Quality, excellence, transnational mobility in doctoral research”.** PhD Student, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca; [email protected] Harding et alii 2006, ix; Venclová 2006, 140.

in the elaboration of this paper I would mention M. Bowden and D. McOmish (1987), R. Hingley (1984), J. Collis (1996), N. Venclová (1997), O. Buchsenschutz (200002, as well as the volume edited by A. Harding, S. Sievers and N. Venclová published in the UK in 2006, that tackles the problem of Enclosures in the Past3.

Enclosures involve the use of boundaries, and since humans are territorial beings they deline-ate their territory in certain ways, either through visible or invisible boundaries or through areas of interaction4. D. Sanders, who quotes behaviorist researcher M. Lavrin’s paper, defines four types of boundaries: psychological ones (pertaining to an individual’s mind), boundaries of personal space (interpersonal boundaries, including territoriality in the equation), social boundaries (an individual’s status as member of one or several groups), and social-physical ones (cultural space and cultural conventions)5. In an attempt to define the concept of boundary, R.J. Lawrence argues that boundaries 2 The paper was published in the volume dedicated to Celtic enclosures, the proceedings of the round table “Les enclose celtiques: pour quoi faire?” organized in France. In Revue archéologique de Picardie no. 1–2, 2000.3 Harding et alii 2006.4 Sanders 1990, 49–51.5 Sanders 1990, 51.

ANALELE BANATULUI, S.N., ARHEOLOGIE – ISTORIE, XXIV, 2016

256

can serve one or several purposes, being physical boundaries (visual), symbolic boundaries (having mostly an aesthetic value), juridical boundaries (the boundaries of possession), and administrative boundaries (the management and control of the territory)6.

To sum up the previous explanations, I can cer-tainly state that boundaries of any kind delimit a certain space, even if “delimitation” is a fairly vague term in this sense, as the space in questions could be delimited not only physically, but also symboli-cally7. Under this respect the search for “invisible delimitations” is rather a philosophical or socio-logical theme, and not an archaeological endeavor.

In his analysis of British Iron Age fortifications, J. Collis suggests two views as starting point for these two understandings of enclosures that are in constant opposition. The first paradigm assumes that enclosures create a dichotomy between enclosed and unenclosed areas, in the sense that some communities used enclosure while others did not, while the second paradigm presumes that enclosures contain or exclude something8. For instance, they can protect people, goods, com-merce, or ritual activities, but at the same time they can keep out enemies or wild beasts. On the other hand, enclosures can delimitate space or dif-ferent activities, public and profane areas, or the land of the living and that the dead9. J. Collis also classifies enclosures according to their dimension: territorial, regional, general enclosures of space, or merely the specific separation of space10.

N. Venclová provides a different perspective by referring to social archaeology which classifies enclosures according to the groups or communities that had used them. On the basis of data avail-able on Iron Age Europe, she divides enclosures according to the following types: 1. Local or indi-vidual enclosures – serving smaller communities or in some cases just certain parts of communities. Dwellings, workshops, households, and necropo-lises fall under this category from an archaeological perspective. 2. Community enclosures – serving the whole community or only some communities. Fortifications and especially Viereckschantze-type fortifications are included in this group, as well as larger necropolises or sanctuaries; 3. Territorial or regional enclosures – they include a larger number

6 Lawrence 1990, 77.7 Venclová 2006, 140.8 Collis 1996, 87.9 Buchsenschutz 2000, 7; Collis 1996, 87; Venclová 2006, 140.10 Collis 1996, 87–88.

of communities; 4. Supra-regional enclosures – the best example in this sense is given by the boundary of the Roman Empire, the limes which comprises a very large population within11.

As previously noted, foreign relevant archaeo-logical works prefer the term enclosure to define a wide range of constructions or designs that entail the use of boundaries, from dwellings, necropo-lises, and ritual areas, to fortifications or external borders (e.g. the limes), without specifying a clear functionality of these enclosures. Precisely for this reason, the Dacian fortresses can be classified as enclosures.

DescriptionThe area of the Orăştiei Mountains (Pl. I),

by far the most intensely researched area within the sphere of interspersion of the Dacian milieu, comprises the fortresses of Băniţa, Costeşti-Blidaru, Costeşti-Cetăţuie, Grădiștea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia, Luncani – Piatra Roşie (Hunedoara county) and Căpâlna (Alba county). According to the usual definition, fortresses are those types of fortifications that are permanently inhabited by a military and political ruler with his garrison, but a civilian settlement could have existed in the proximity12. One of the specific ele-ments these fortresses shared is the construction system borrowed from the Hellenistic world. It entails the use of profiled limestone blocks on two facings connected through wooden beams fixed in lap joints. The part between the two facings of the wall, the emplecton, was filled with stones and clay13. This construction technique was labeled murus dacicus14 in the relevant field of research15. From a chronological point of view, these fortifica-tions are assumed to have functioned simultane-ously from the 1st century B.C. to the 1st century A.D. and to have falled out of use after the Roman conquest.

The fortress in Băniţa (Pl. II) is situated on the crag called “Piatra Cetăţii” or “Dealul Bolii”, at an altitude of 902 meters16. It is by far the least researched fortress among the ones previously mentioned, as the only archaeological excavations were performed during 1960–1961 by a team led 11 Venclová 2006, 143.12 Glodariu 1983, 50, 75.13 Glodariu 1983, 124.14 For a discussion see Ștefan 1995, 467–492.15 Daicoviciu et alii 1954, 130, Daicoviciu 1954, 35–41, Daicoviciu 1960, 319–321, Glodariu 1983, 124; See the criticism directed at this denomination in Opreanu 2015, 153–155.16 Daicoviciu et alii 1989, 211.

257

by O. Floca17. On the basis of the short reports and publications elaborated in the aftermath, one finds that the only reinforcement works clustered on the northern side of the fortress (precinct walls, banks, and combat platforms)18, as the other sides lacked such works due to the fact that the inclines of the hill are very steep.

The fortress in Căpâlna (Pl. III) is the eastern-most fortification of the group, situated at the height of 610 meters19. The fortification has an irregular ground plan which follows the configuration of the terrain. Two towers were built in the southern part, the most accessible one, also used as an access area. One of the towers was probably used as a dwell-ing. The walls of the precinct start from the area of the residential tower towards North-West and East, each wall having two facings, then the wall stretches further with only one facing that was secured most likely with wooden beams or other types of longitu-dinal beams directly to the rock20.

The fortification in Costeşti-Blidaru (Pl. IV) surrounds the highest area of a hill, reaching a max-imum altitude of 690 meters21. Due to its location and the elements of the fortification, the fortress from Blidaru has been regarded in historiography as “the most important military work”22 from the area of the Orăştiei Mountains. The construction works of the fortress have been erected during two phases. During the first phase the eastern precinct was built in shape of an irregular quadrangle with four towers in the corners. A residential tower was also built during this phase, in the southern half of the precinct, as well as an isolated tower (no. 6) situated 30 meters west of it. During the second phase the fortification was enlarged towards the West comprising the first precinct, reaching the 6th tower and with another tower, number 5, built on the other corner23.

The fortress of Costeşti-Cetăţuie (Pl. V), the northernmost of the group under discussion, is situated at the highest altitude of 561 meters24.

17 Macrea et alii 1966, 23–25.18 Daicoviciu et alii 1989, 212; Macrea et alii 1966, 26.19 Daicoviciu et alii 1989, 212.20 Macrea-Berciu 1965, 201–210; Macrea et alii 1966, 9–23.21 Pescaru et alii 2014, 4.22 Daicoviciu et alii 1989, 181.23 Daicoviciu et alii 1954, 124–147; Daicoviciu et alii 1955, 195–238; Glodariu 1983, 91–93; Daicoviciu et alii 1989, 178–180; The possibility that tower no. 5 pertains to the first phase of the fortress construction is also taken into consideration, see Daicoviciu, Glodariu 1976, 74; Pescaru et alii 2014, 4, footnote 7.24 Daicoviciu et alii 1989, 178.

The enclosure of the higher area of the plateau was done in several stages. As such, in the first phase the narrow terrace which surrounds the upper pla-teau was confined through an earth rampart with a double palisade25. On top of this rampart, which was partially affected by a landfall, a new rampart was erected during the third stage of the fortress, roughly following the same layout and labeled “the red rampart”26 in specialized literature. The sec-ond phase of the fortress includes all constructions with foundations made of profiled limestone walls, two residential towers from the upper plateau, and one extra valum, as well as three defensive towers connected by two walls erected using the same technique27.

The most important establishment from the area of the Orăştiei Mountains, one regarded as royal residence, is the fortress of Grădiștea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia (Pl. VI). Even though it has been the one attracting the strongest archeo-logical interest, the precinct raises many questions. Currently, the fortification expands over the site’s first five terraces but this is the result of the expan-sion activity pursued by the Roman Empire. The alleged Dacian precinct which follows the configu-ration of the terrain is believed to have enclosed only the first three terraces and a surface of 1 hectare28.

The fortress of Luncani – Piatra Roşie (Pl. VII) is situated on a reddish limestone rock, with a max-imum altitude of 823 meters.29 The only consider-able explorations of this fortress were performed by the team led by C. Daicoviciu in 194930 which revealed its initial construction plan. Thus, a forti-fication of profiled, quadrangular limestone blocks with four corner towers and one curtain tower was erected on the upper plateau. A second pre-cinct, related to the plateau’s precinct (with which it shared the western wall) was erected of stone, wood, and clay and enclosed two towers with walls made of profiled limestone blocks31.

25 Daicoviciu et alii 1989, 178.26 Daicoviciu 1979, 104, 110; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, 16; Daicoviciu et alii 1989, 179; Glodariu 1983, 89; Sion 1985, 3.27 Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, 8–19; Daicoviciu et alii 1989, 178–180; Glodariu 1983, 91–93; Teodorescu 1929, 272–281.28 Gheorghiu 2005, 62–67; Glodariu 1983, 97–98.29 Daicoviciu et alii 1989, 199.30 Daicoviciu 1954, 32–35.31 Daicoviciu 1954, 35–72; Daicoviciu et alii 1989, 199–201; Glodariu 1983, 101–103.


258

DiscussionsRegarding the functionality of the enclosures

and hillforts from the British Iron Age, J. Collis identifies the following functions attributed to fortifications: defensive, border markers between communities, designating activities, ostentatious, status enhancement, and symbolic32. The present analysis of the fortifications from the Orăştiei Mountains follows several aspects mentioned by J. Collis, taking into consideration the methodo-logical precaution required by using the model from one context to the other.

The defensive role. The emergence of for-tresses, the magnitude of the fortifying elements, and their location at high altitudes along access routes underline their military functions. This prevailing defensive military role33, meant primar-ily to block access towards Grădiștea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia, has been a constant of Romanian archaeology which studied the topic. I do not wish to underestimate this role, but the current evolution of research and the development of archaeological discourse in Romania can only provide a partial explanation.

More recently, attention has been drawn to the fact that although the fortresses display traces of long-term habitation, their fortification elements do not seem to have been built to sustain pro-longed sieges. On the one hand, the inner areas of these fortresses are relatively small, thus limiting the number of possible defenders, though one can certainly accept that not all the population from the civilian establishments took part in the defense of the fortress34. On the other hand, researches have revealed that no water storage installations existed inside the fortifications and this is another element that could lead to a diminished combat capacity35. On sites where such installations have been discovered, at least in Costeşti-Blidaru and in Grădiștea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia (if we agree that the Dacian fortress surrounded the first three terraces), the water cistern was found out-side the walls. Another explanation, also partially confirmed by the written sources, is the fact that during the first war Decebal moved the conflict far from the area of the Orăştiei Mountains, first to Tapae, than an incursion into Moesia, in enemy territory36.

32 Collis 1996, 87–90.33 Daicovicu 1960, 305; Daicoviciu 1978, 5; Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951, 64; Glodariu 1983.34 Pupeză 2011, 151.35 Glodariu 1983, 118–119.36 Glodariu 2001.

I would like to stress two other revealing aspects on the issue. First, the fact that in the case of the Costeşti-Blidaru fortress no weapon (indispensa-ble items in cases of conflicts) has been discovered and published so far in reports or archaeological works. This raises some questions regarding the military capacity of this fortress and the date when it relinquished part of its military value during the confrontations with the Romans. G. Florea for-mulated an interesting hypothesis37 that, to begin with, underlines the fact that the fortress does not show any traces of a powerful fire, suggesting at the same time a possible surrender or abandonment that might have occurred.

Another aspect that I wish to mention is the “defensive system” of the stronghold of Căpâlna. The southern slope, the most accessible side of the cliff leading towards the residential tower, had been fortified thus: a ditch, then a rampart at a distance of 17 meters, followed closely by another ditch, a succession repeated a few meters further, as well as an alleged palisade in the proximity of the aforementioned residential tower38. In a regu-lar defensive system, one might be accustomed to find a ditch followed by a rampart, whereas in the case of Căpâlna the succession is reversed. Perhaps this odd system should be regarded from a non-defensive perspective, even symbolical39, or if not, does this system belong to the medieval period40?

The demarcation of the activity area. The most important settlement from the Orăştie Mountains, Grădiștea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia, is also the most complex one in what con-cerns its construction plan. Specialists presume that the site was structured threefold: the actual stronghold, which I have presented above, a sacred area comprising seven temples (two circular ones and five quadrangle ones) and an altar, and the civilian area, divided into two quarters, a western one and an eastern one. I. H. Crişan’s idea regard-ing the sacred area, the area of the temples, which he called a “sacred precinct” has remained rather unexplored in the archaeological literature41. The existence of a sacred precinct would entail the pres-ence of a wall or multiple walls surrounding it, an issue not yet confirmed by archaeological research, as the uncovered walls from the sacred area

37 Florea 1989–1993, 35.38 Glodariu, Moga 1989, 34–35; Macrea et alii 1966, 11. 39 Similar cases where the dike follows the ridge are published in the British Iron Age territory as well, at Navan Fort, Tara or Dún Ailinne, see Collis 1996, 88.40 Fortress of Căpâlna presents traces from medieval period;41 Crişan, 1984, 175.

259

rather seem to support the 10th and 11th terraces (Pl. VIII). However, this precinct does not have to be a visible boundary; we might just as well be dealing with symbolical boundaries in this case. As I mentioned in the beginning of the paper, various communities also resort to symbolical boundaries in order to delineate such areas.

Status. Social inequality is a constant of human evolution even if some researches assumed the most primitive communities to have shared an egalitarian system; in a community, criteria such as age, gender, or personal abilities could be indi-cators that suggest a certain social stratification42. Social inequality can be expressed not only through material objects but also through non-material ones43 but archaeology can only reveal the former. As such, from an archaeological point of view, the material traces which underline social stratification are: elite residences, the accumulation and distri-bution of wealth, figurative representations, and tombs44, to mention only a few of these inequality filters.

The enclosure of space could also be an indi-cator of social differentiation, in the sense that it could point to the disparities between the com-munity that lives within this precinct and the ones that lives outside it, on the one hand. On the other hand, it can emphasize the status of a group in relation to the society or it can underline the privileged status of a certain singular group (for instance, the royal family)45.

In this sense, H. Daicoviciu saw in the emer-gence of fortresses (not necessarily the ones from the Orăştiei Mountains) a “topographic detach-ment of a minority on a dominant position”46. By applying a Hellenistic model, the one of sce-nographic urbanism47 that amplifies the difference between the people in the proximity of the fortifi-cation and those in the valley, we can suppose that the most important residents of the fortification were living inside it or in its close proximity48. The residential towers, regarded as seats of the military and political leader49, are located in the dominant

42 Flanagan 1989, 245–246.43 Venclová 2006, 143.44 Renfrew, Bahn 2006, 189–190.45 Collis 1996, 90.46 Daicoviciu 1981, 34; Florea 2006.47 Martin 1956, passim; Also, especially in the 7th and 8th decades of the last century in the western literature, strongholds were interpreted as elites residences that controlled the activities of attached craftsman and traders, see Cunliffe 1976, 135–162; Cunliffe 1982, 161–181.48 Glodariu 1983, 118, 120.49 Glodariu 1983, 26.

spots of the strongholds, with one exception, the case of the residential tower in Căpâlna.

A new aspect which I bring forth is the enclo-sure of the upper plateau of the Costeşti-Cetăţuie fortress through a double palisade which comprises the two residential towers as well. Even though it is hard to achieve this presently, it would be inter-esting to create a connection between this double palisade and the construction levels of the two towers, knowing that both residential towers have two levels of construction50. This palisade could be regarded as a delineation of the space which makes the difference between the public and pri-vate areas51 rather than as a defensive element of the stronghold.

Symbolical and ostentatious role. P. Pupeză52, analyzing the walls erected in the murus dacicus technique in the Orăştie Mountains in a series of recent articles, has underlined the symbolical mes-sage of this architectonic program which for him “would be the transfer into practice of an ideology coming from the elites that were not exclusively consolidated from a military point of view”53. St. Fichtl expressed a similar perspective on the Celtic fortresses from the final La Tène that underlines their three main roles, the military, the ostenta-tious, and the symbolical ones54. Another aspect emphasized by P. Pupeză in another article55 is that the main function of the fortresses from the area of the Orăştiei Mountains was to be seen rather than for their inhabitants to see over the surround-ing territory, as they are clearly dominated by other heights (Pl. X). A similar idea is also expressed in the British context by M. Bowden and D. McOmish56, as many of the Iron Age fortifications were located lower than the rest of the landscape in such a way that people could better observe what happened within their walls. This could indicate the different status and the prestige of the residents.

I shall also analyze the entrances to these for-tresses in relation to the ostentatious role under discussion. In Costeşti-Cetăţuie the access to the stronghold precinct marked by the rampart entails a “clipper”57 entrance; in other words the ends of the ramparts overlap, forming a narrow corridor. In the case of the Costeşti-Blidaru stronghold, pre-50 Sion 1985, 4–6.51 A similar case is presented in Great Britain at Hood Hill, Collis 1996, 90.52 Pupeză 2010, 159–170; Pupeză 2011, 148–158.53 Pupeză 2011, 153.54 Fichtl 2005; Opreanu 2015.55 Pupeză 2012, 84.56 Bowden, McOmish 1987.57 Daicoviciu 1978, 8; Daicoviciu 1979, 105.


260

cinct 1 was accessed through tower number one, in the so-called “a chicane” manner58 (Pl. IX/2,3). The main entrance in Căpâlna59 was also in a tower. In order to access the precinct of the upper plateau of the fortress of Luncani – Piatra Roşie (Pl. IX/1) one also had to go through a tower, this time with stairs (tower number 2)60. Beside their main role of limiting access, these entrances can be seen from another angle as well: the way in which the forti-fications looked once one has passed through the entrances also implies an ostentatious role.

ConclusionsOne must highlight once more that in attempt-

ing to understand these fortifications, the classical approach, that of a defensive belt surrounding the central establishment at Grădiștea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia, is merely a partial explanation. In this sense, K. Lockyear envisaged these fortifica-tions as centers in constant competition61, a pro-cess revealing the way of life of the elites in the end of the second Iron Age62. If we are to accept this, than the starting point in the understanding of this system should be to approach each stronghold according to its particularity and inventory. On the other hand, the fact that no enclosure or con-struction resembles the other should be regarded, beyond the different ideology of these elites63, through the economic power of these fortresses or rather of their residents. By applying a model of analysis suggested by J. Collis for the fortifications of the British Iron Age to the Dacian fortresses from the Orăştiei Mountains, with all the caution, one can unravel the puzzle of these strongholds.

Acknowledgements: This paper was possible with the financial sup-

port offered by the Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development 2007–2013, co-financed through the European Social Fund within the POSDRU/187/1.5/S/155383 project, with the title “Quality, excellence, transnational mobility in doctoral research”.

58 Daicovicu 1978, 8; Daicoviciu et alii 1954, 130.59 Daicoviciu 1978, 8; Daicoviciu et alii 1989, 225; Glodariu, Moga 1989, 43–44.60 Daicoviciu 1954, 45–49; Daicovicu 1978, 8.61 Lockyear 2004, 70.62 Florea 2006, 8.63 Florea 2006, 7.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bowden, McOmish 1987M. Bowden, D. McOmish, The Required Barrier.

Scottish Archaeological Review, 4 (1987), 76–84.

Buchsenschutz 2000O. Buchsenschutz, Traces, tipologie et interprétation

des enclos de l‘Âge du Fer. Revue archéologique de la Picar-die, no. 1–2. Les enclos celtiques – Actes de la tables ronde der Ribermont-sur-Acre, Somme (2000), 7–11.

Collis 1996J. R. Collis, Hill-forts, Enclosures and Boundaries.

T. C. Champion, J. R. Collis (Eds.), The Iron Age in Brit-ain and Ireland. Recent Trends, Sheffield (1996), 87–94.

Crişan 1986I. H. Crişan., Spiritualitatea geto-dacilor, Bucureşti

(1986).

Cunliffe 1976B. W. Cunliffe, The origins of urbanization in Brit-

ain. Cunliffe, T. Rowley (eds.), Oppida: The Beginning of Urbanization in Barbarian Europe, BAR Supplementary Series 11 Oxford (1976), 135–162.

Cunliffe 1982B. W. Cunliffe, Settlement hierarchy and social change

in southern Britain in the Iron Age. C. C. Bakels, M. E. Th. de Grooth, L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, and G. J. Verwers (Eds.), Prehistoric Settlement Patterns around the Southern North Sea, Leiden (1982), 161–181.

Daicoviciu 1954C. Daicoviciu, Cetatea dacică de la Piatra Roşie,

Bucureşti (1954).

Daicoviciu 1960C. Daicoviciu, In Istoria Romîniei, I, Bucureşti (1960).

Daicoviciu 1978H. Daicoviciu., Cercetări arheologice privind

cunoașterea sistemului de fortificații la geto-daci. RMM-MIA, 1 (1978), 3–8.

Daicoviciu 1979H. Daicoviciu, Sistemul defensiv al cetății dacice de la

Costeşti. Sargetia, 14 (1979), 103–114.

Daicoviciu 1981H. Daicoviciu, Societatea dacică în epoca statului.

H. Daicoviciu (Ed.). Studii dacice, Cluj-Napoca (1981), 23–47.

Daicoviciu, Ferenczi 1951C. Daicoviciu, Al. Ferenczi, Aşezările dacice din Munţii

Orăştiei, Bucureşti (1954).

Daicoviciu, Glodariu 1976H. Daicoviciu, I. Glodariu, Puncte de reper pentru

261

cronologia cetăţilor şi aşezărilor dacice din Munţii Orăştiei. ActaMN, XIII (1976), 71–80.

Daicoviciu et alii 1954C. Daicoviciu, O. Floca, M. Macrea, A. Deac,

M. Dediu, P. Duka, Şt. Ferenczi, M. Gostar, An. Ilieş, D. Mitrofan, D. Radu, I. Winkler, Şantierul arheologic Grădiştea Muncelului (r. Orăştie, reg. Hunedoara). SCIV V, 1–2 (1954), 123–155.

Daicoviciu et alii 1955C. Daicoviciu, A. Bodor, Şt. Ferenczi, N. Gostar,

M. Rusu, I. Winkler, I. Crişan, G. Ferenczi, Şantierul arheologic Grădiştea Muncelului-Blidaru. SCIV VI, 1–2 (1955) 195–238.

Daicoviciu et alii 1989H. Daicoviciu, Şt. Ferenczi, I. Glodariu, Cetăţi şi

aşezări dacice din sud-vestul Transilvaniei, Bucureşti (1989).

Fichtl 2005St. Fichtl, Murus et pomerium: réflexions sur la fonc-

tion des remparts protohistoriques. Revue archéologique du Centre de la France, 44 (2005), 55–72.

Flanagan 1989J. G. Flanagan, Hierarchy in Simple “Egalitarian” Soci-

eties. Annual Review of Anthropology, 18 (1989), 245–266.

Florea 1993G. Florea, Archaeological Observations Concerning

the Roman Conquest of the Area of the Dacian Kingdom’s Capital. ActaMN 26–30 (1989–1993) I/1, 33–37.

Florea 2006G. Florea, The Public Image of the Dacian Aristocracy,

Studia UBB. Historia, 51, 1 (2006), 1–11.

Gheorghiu 2005G. Gheorghiu, Dacii pe cursul mijlociu al Mureşului,

Cluj-Napoca (2005).

Glodariu 1983I. Glodariu, Arhitectura dacilor. Civilă şi militară (sec.

II î.e.n. – I e.n.), Cluj-Napoca (1983).

Glodariu 2001I. Glodariu, în Istoria Românilor, I, Bucureşti (2001).

Glodariu, Moga 1989I. Glodariu, V. Moga, Cetatea dacică de la Căpâlna,

Bucureşti (1989).

Harding et alii 2006A. Harding, S. Sievers, N. Venclová, Introduction,

A. Harding, S. Sievers, N. Venclová (Eds.), Enclosing the past: inside and outside in prehistory, Sheffield (2006), ix-x.

Hingley 1984R. Hingley, Towards social analysis in archaeology:

Celtic society in the Iron Age of the Upper Thames Valley

(400–0 BC). B. Cunliffe, D. Milles D. (Eds.), Aspect of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain, (1984), 72–88.

Lawrence 1990R. J. Lawrence, Public, collective and private space:

a study of urban housing in Switzerland. Kent S. (Ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, Cambridge (1990), 43–72.

Lockyear 2004K. Lockyear, The Late Iron Age background to Roman

Dacia. W. S. Hanson, I. P. Haynes., Roman Dacia. The Making of a Provincial Society, Portsmouth/Rhode Island (2004), 33–74.

Macrea, Berciu 1965M. Macrea, I. Berciu, La citadelle dacique de Căpâlna.

Dacia N.S., IX (1965), 201–235.

Macrea et alii 1966M. Macrea, O. Floca, N. Lupu, I. Berciu, Cetăţi dacice

din sudul Transilvaniei, Bucureşti (1966).

Martin 1956R. Martin, L’Urbanisme dans la Grèce antique, Paris

(1956).

Opreanu 2015C. H. Opreanu, Arhitectura epocii Latène din Munţii

Şureanu (Sebeşului). O analiză metodologică. AnB S.N., 23 (2015), 151–186.

Pescaru et alii 2014A. Pescaru, G. Florea, R. Mateescu, P. Pupeză, C. Cris-

tescu, C. Bodó, E. Pescaru, The Dacian Fortress from Costești-Blidaru – Recent Archaeological Research. The Towers from La Vămi, Poiana lui Mihu, Platoul Făeragului (I). JAHA, 1, (2014), 3–28.

Pupeză 2010P. Pupeză, Murus Dacicus between function and sym-

bol. Transylvanian Review, 19, supplement no.2 (2010), 159–170.

Pupeză 2011P. Pupeză, Murus Dacicus, simbol al războiului sau al

păcii?. Revista Bistriței XXV, (2011), 148–158.

Pupeză 2012P. Pupeză, To see or to be seen. The Dacian fortresses

from Orăştiei Mountains. Annales d’Université Valahia Târgovişte, 14, 2, 81–85.

Renfrew, Bahn 2000C. Renfrew, P. Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods

and Practice, 3rd edition, Thames&Hudson (2000).

Sanders 1990D. Sanders, Behavioral conventional archaeology:

methods for the analysis of ancient architecture. Kent


262

S. (Ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, Cam-bridge (1990), 43–72.

Sion 1985A. Sion, Cetatea dacică de la Costeşti. Scurtă privire

asupra sistemului de construcţie. RMI-MIA, 2 (1985), 3–12.

Ştefan 1995A. S. Ştefan, Murus dacicus, Sur les pas des Grecs

en Occident, Collection Etudes Massaliètes, 4 (1995), 467–492

Ştefan 2005A. S. Ştefan, Les guerres dacique de Domitien et de Tra-

jan: architecture militaire topographie, images et histoire, Rome (2005).

Teodorescu 1929D. M. Teodorescu, Cetatea dacă de la Costeşti.

ACMIT, II (1929), 265–298.

Venclová 1997N. Venclová, On enclosures, pots and trees in the for-

est. Journal of European Archaeology, 5, 1 (1997), 131–150.

Venclová 2006N. Venclová, Enclosing, enclosures and elites in the

Iron Age. A. Harding, S. Sievers, N. Venclová (Eds.), Enclosing the past: inside and outside in prehistory, Sheffield (2006), 140–152.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS:

Pl. I – General view of the fortresses from Orăștiei Mountains (G. Florea);

Pl. II – 1. General view of Băniţa fortress (cetăți-dacice.ro) 2. Overall plan of the archaeological excavations performed at Băniţa fortress (O. Floca);

Pl. III – 1 Ground plan of the fortress in Căpâlna (G. Gheorghiu). 2. General view of the fortress in Căpâlna (cetăți-dacice.ro);

Pl. IV – 1. Ground plan of the stronghold in Costeşti-Blidaru (Pescaru et alii). 2. General view of the stronghold in Costeşti-Blidaru (cetăți-dacice.ro);

Pl. V – Ground plan of the fortress in Costeşti-Cetăţuie (A. Sion).

Pl. VI – 1. Ground plan of the fortress in Grădiştea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia (I. Glodariu). 2. The walls of the current fortress at the moment of their discovery (cetăți-dacice.ro);

Pl. VII – Reconstruction suggestion of the fortress in Luncani-Piatra Roşie (C. Daicoviciu). 2. The plan of the

fortress in Luncani-Piatra Roşie (I. Glodariu). 3. General view (cetăți-dacice.ro);

Pl. VIII – 1. Overall plan of the settlement in Grădiştea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia. 2. The sacred area (I. Glodariu);

Pl. IX – 1. The monumental stair which leads to the interior of precinct no.1 from the fortress in Luncani-Piatra Roşie (C. Daicoviciu). 2. The en chicane entrance to the interior of precinct no. 1 from the fortress in Costeşti-Blidaru (A. S. Ştefan). 3. Entrances to the fortress in Costeşti-Blidaru (cetăți-dacice.ro);

Pl. X – 1. The fortress in Costeşti-Cetăţuie seen from Luncanilor Platform (cetăți-dacice.ro). 2. The fortress of Costeşti-Blidaru seen from Luncanilor Platform (cetăți-dacice.ro).

263

Pl. I

. Gen

eral

vie

w o

f the

fort

ress

es fr

om O

răști

ei M

ount

ains

(apu

d G

. Flo

rea)

.


264

Pl. II. 1. Overall plan of the archaeological excavations performed at Băniţa fortress (apud O. Floca). 2. General view of Băniţa fortress (cetăți-dacice.ro).

1

2

265

Pl. III. 1 Ground plan of the fortress in Căpâlna (apud G. Gheorghiu). 2. General view of the fortress in Căpâlna (cetăți-dacice.ro).

1

2


266

Pl. IV. 1. Ground plan of the stronghold in Costeşti-Blidaru (apud Pescaru et alii). 2. General view of the stronghold in Costeşti-Blidaru (cetăți-dacice.ro).

1

2

267

Pl. V. Ground plan of the fortress in Costeşti-Cetăţuie (apud A. Sion).


268

Pl. VI. 1. Ground plan of the fortress in Grădiştea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia (apud I. Glodariu). 2. The walls of the current fortress at the moment of their discovery (cetăți-dacice.ro).

1

2

269

Pl. VII. Reconstruction suggestion of the fortress in Luncani-Piatra Roşie (apud C. Daicoviciu). 2. The plan of the for-tress in Luncani-Piatra Roşie (apud I. Glodariu). 3. General view (cetăți-dacice.ro).

1 2

3


270

Pl. VIII. 1. Overall plan of the settlement in Grădiştea de Munte – Sarmizegetusa Regia. 2. The sacred area (apud I. Glodariu).

1

2

271

Pl. IX. 1. The monumental stair which leads to the interior of precinct no.1 from the fortress in Luncani-Piatra Roşie (apud C. Daicoviciu). 2. The en chicane entrance to the interior of precinct no. 1 from the fortress in Costeşti-Blidaru (apud A. S. Ştefan). 3. Entrances to the fortress in Costeşti-Blidaru (cetăți-dacice.ro).

12

3


272

Pl. X. 1. The fortress in Costeşti-Cetăţuie seen from Luncanilor Platform (cetăți-dacice.ro). 2. The fortress of Costeşti-Blidaru seen from Luncanilor Platform (cetăți-dacice.ro).

1

2

the fortifications in orĂŞtie mountains as ... banatului arheologie-istorie...the fortifications...

Documents